-
Leasehold is just renting. But on a timescale that makes most believe they own something, and with a set of conditions that make you take on the job of the landowner.
I do have my problems with leasehold - I'm quite active in the leaseholdscandal and do some work with LKP - but there are some key differences. Yes, in law, a leaseholder is effectively a tenant. However, unlike a renter, you can sell your lease. That's a huge difference for those of us who see Leasehold as a stepping stone to owning outright.
Also the conditions make you financially responsible for what the landowner decides to do with the building, but doesn't make you responsible for the work itself - unless you're on the board of an RTMCo or a part Freeholder. And imo both of those are better positions to be in than being obliged to take whatever nonsense the freeholder decides to do with the property.
There are definitely downsides and it's great that the leasehold scandal has such traction, but it shouldn't be a flat no for property buyers, especially those of us without the budget to buy freehold.
ReekBlefs-
And imo both of those are better positions to be in than being obliged to take whatever nonsense the freeholder decides to do with the property
It turns out if you simply object to everything, refuse to pay and/or be generally unreachable those obligations don't mean a lot. Signed, a joint freeholder.
(doubly so if you're non-resident)
-
Also the conditions make you financially responsible for what the landowner decides to do with the building, but doesn't make you responsible for the work itself - unless you're on the board of an RTMCo or a part Freeholder. And imo both of those are better positions to be in than being obliged to take whatever nonsense the freeholder decides to do with the property.
Given the amount of work I get from internecine RTMCo squabbles and share-of-freehold fights, I'm far from convinced that's true. The fundamental problem with flats is that there's a common structure which needs to be maintained, unlike with a house. And for reasons which are more cultural than legal, I suspect, the UK generally seems singularly ill-equipped for dealing with the conflicts that this inherently produces, not least because property is seen as more of an investment rather than simply somewhere to live.
grams
Brommers
Leasehold is just renting. But on a timescale that makes most believe they own something, and with a set of conditions that make you take on the job of the landowner.
It sucks.
But then land ownership in the UK (inc Scotland) sucks and creates a scarcity problem that isn't real.